Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 27, 2019)
Friday, September 27, 2019 Volume 92, Number 39 CapitalPress.com $2.00 EMPOWERING PRODUCERS OF FOOD & FIBER WSU Extension Harold P. Singleton with the new sign for the Irrigation Experiment Station on Aug. 31, 1949. He was superintendent of the station for 36 years. HONORING THE PAST, LOOKING TO THE FUTURE During its first 100 years, Washington State University’s Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center has played an important role in growing agriculture IAREC CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Oct. 5 Area in detail 24 HANFORD REACH NATIONAL MONUMENT 241 Prosser Irrigated Agriculture and Research Center 82 12 241 Yak i ma R W. McCreadie Road iver Prosser 221 22 Free public event. By MATTHEW WEAVER Capital Press ROSSER, Wash. — Drive through the Yakima Valley and you’ll see many of Washington’s crops at their best. Wine grapes. Rainier cherries. Potatoes. Tree branches heavy with fruit. Hops. Blueberries. It’s a drastic change from 100 years ago, when the region’s farmers primarily grew forage crops. During that time, they’ve relied on the many break- throughs discovered by the scientists at Washington State University’s Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center (IAREC) in Prosser, Wash. Most farmers draw water from the Columbia River or its tributaries to irrigate their crops. In the early days of the station, they relied on surface irrigation. Today, most This family-friendly event includes educational booths on a variety of topics, including Washing- ton state grapes, robots, potatoes, butterflies, plants and photosynthesis, weath- er, desert plants, and much more. P 2 miles See Center, Page 12 Alan Kenaga/Capital Press Matthew Weaver/Capital Press Washington State University’s Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, in Prosser, Wash., celebrates its 100th anniversary this year. Participants are invited to take pictures with the WSU mascot, Butch T. Cougar, take part in a grape stomp booth, and soak WSU scien- tists at a dunking booth. AREC is located at 24106 N. Bunn Road in Prosser, Wash. Minimum hazelnut price jumps to 83 cents per pound Industry survives China trade dispute, weak Turkish lira By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press Oregon Hazelnut Industry Hazelnuts harvested from the orchards head to the processors in the fall. Oregon growers will receive at least 83 cents per pound for the 2019 crop. While hazelnuts remain mired in a broader trade conflict, Oregon farmers will receive a substantially higher mini- mum price for the crop this year. The crop still faces steep tariffs in China — a major export destination for Oregon hazelnuts — but the industry has become more accustomed to oper- ating during the ongoing trade dispute with that country, experts say. “Now that we’ve been through the tariff situation, we know how to prepare for it,” said Terry Ross, executive direc- tor of the Hazelnut Growers Bargaining Association, which negotiates prices. Growers will receive at least 83 cents per pound of hazelnuts for the 2019, regardless of variety, up from the 62 cent floor established last year. Though it’s an improvement, the minimum price is still less than half the record $1.70 per pound set in 2014. “We want to pay more to the grower but the market can only accept so much product with an 81.5% tariff and tax,” said Larry George, president of the George Packing Co., a processor based in Newberg, Ore. Last year, the Oregon hazelnut indus- try also had to contend with the plung- ing value of currency in Turkey, which is the major global producer of the crop. As the value of the Turkish lira dropped, its hazelnuts effectively became less expensive than those grown in the U.S. “Last year was a perfect storm. We had the lira collapse and we had a trade war. This year, everything is about the same as last year, but we survived,” said Michael Severeid, vice president of sales and marketing for Willamette See Hazelnut, Page 12 Manufacturers defend food-makers in GMO case By DON JENKINS Capital Press A trade group representing manufacturers has asked the Washington Supreme Court to overturn a record fine against the food industry for mak- ing anonymous donations to defeat a GMO-la- beling initiative in 2013. In an amicus brief filed last week, the National Association of Manufacturers argues lower courts were insensitive to internet-fueled repri- sals that businesses face. By funneling campaign contributions through an umbrella organization, food-makers pre- served their right to band together and take polit- ical stands, according to the manufacturers. “Without anonymity, speakers face boy- cotts, harassment, and even threats of violence, all for engaging in activity at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection,” the amicus brief states. The Supreme Court will hear arguments Oct. 22 in Olympia on whether the Grocery Manu- Don Jenkins/Capital Press The Supreme Court will hear arguments Oct. 22 in Olympia on whether the Grocery Manufacturers Association violated the state’s election law by not naming the companies that spent $11 million to defeat a GMO labeling initiative. facturers Association violated the state’s election law by not naming the companies that spent $11 million to defeat the initiative. The association collected the money and reported itself as the donor. Under pressure from state regulators, the association disclosed shortly before the election that the money came from brand-name companies such as PepsiCo, Nestle USA, Coca-Cola, General Mills and ConAgra Foods. The initiative was narrowly defeated. The court also will decide whether to uphold the largest-ever fine levied in the U.S. for a cam- paign finance violation. An appeals court reduced the fine to $6 million from $18 million, but it still far exceeds any other election-law penalty. Attorney General Bob Ferguson is seeking to restore the $18 million fine. The grocery asso- ciation intentionally tried to deceive voters, his office argues. The grocery association argues it thought it was complying with Washington law. The proposal to label products with GMO ingredients motivated the most-expensive elec- tion in Washington’s history. It came a year after a bruising fight in California. See GMO, Page 12
